Tag Archives: simplified acquisitions

Post navigation

An agency failed to meet its obligations to properly publicize a simplified acquisition valued between $15,000 and $25,000 where the agency placed the solicitation in a three-ring binder at the reception desk in a government office–and that office was closed during most of the relevant time.

In a recent decision, the GAO affirmed that principle that even when the dollar value of a simplified acquisition doesn’t meet the requirement for electronic posting on FedBizOpps, the agency still must take reasonable steps to maximize competition.

Competition is the touchstone of federal contracting. Except in limited circumstances, agencies are required to procure goods and services through full and open competition. In this regard, an agency’s decision to limit competition to only brand name items must be adequately justified.

The nonmanufacturer rule will not apply to small business set-aside contracts valued between $3,000 and $150,000, according to the SBA.

In its recent major rulemaking, the SBA exempts these small business set-aside contracts from the nonmanufacturer rule, meaning that small businesses will be able to supply the products of large manufacturers for these contracts without violating the limitations on subcontracting.

In a small business set-aside simplified acquisition of $25,000 or less, small business offerors may propose using large business manufacturers while still complying with the requirements of the nonmanufacturer rule.

In a recent decision, the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals held that an apparent ambiguity contained in the nonmanufacturer regulation for certain simplified acquisitions should be resolved in favor of exempting offerors from the requirement that the manufacturer be a small business concern.

The Army did not violate the Competition in Contracting Act by soliciting only three local sources for a simplified acquisition to be performed outside of the United States.

In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO explained that under the circumstances, the Army was not required to publish notice of the procurement on the FedBizOpps website, and satisfied the competition requirements by seeking quotations from three local sources.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ award of a contract to a small business under simplified acquisition procedures was improper because it appeared that a number of service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses could have filed the requirement, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.

Unlike the ongoing Aldevra cases, in which the VA has purposefully continued making awards to non-SDVOSBs under the Federal Supply Schedule in the face of repeated GAO decisions stating that the practice is illegal, the GAO’s decision in GAO Protest of Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc., B-407104 (Oct. 26, 2012), suggests that the VA simply did not understand how the agency’s own set-aside rules are supposed to work, at least in the context of a simplified acquisition.

This blog is for educational purposes only. Nothing posted on this blog constitutes or substitutes for legal advice, which can only be obtained from a personal consultation with a qualified attorney. Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the author and/or Koprince Law LLC. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this blog is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Koprince Law LLC.